CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Studies and Communication

Time to #Protest: Selective Exposure, Cascading Activation, and Framing in Social Media

Open access
Aruguete, Natalia, Calvo, Ernesto·2018·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1093/joc/jqy007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In social media, sharing posts exposes a larger number of users to the preferred content of their peers. As users select or discard content, they collectively highlight facets of events or issues as to promote a particular interpretation. This article describes how social media users frame political events by selectively sharing content that is cognitively congruent with their beliefs. We model cognitive dissonance modeling time-to-retweet and exemplify the proposed theory with a study of recent protest events in Argentina.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/joc/jqy007

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • En un escenario político de creciente polarización, los medios tradicionales aparecen como fuertes promotores de premisas que calan hondo en sus comunidades de pertenencia.

    “En un escenario político de creciente polarización, los medios tradicionales aparecen como fuertes promotores de premisas que calan hondo en sus comunidades de pertenencia (Aruguete & Calvo, 2018).”

    From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Aruguete & Calvo, 2018

    The Introduction describes polarized Argentine communities and aligned media organizations. “Keywords in each community” shows that the communities shared links to different news outlets, while “Model and discussion” finds that like-minded users propagated distinct political frames. The paper attributes that propagation chiefly to social-media users’ sharing behavior; it does not establish that traditional media were strong promoters whose premises took hold within their communities. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Newspapers can be classified as linked to the government's political line or as opposition media.

    “aquellos que dirigen a los periódicos ligados a la línea política del Gobierno y, por otro, los que hipervinculan a medios opositores (Aruguete & Calvo, 2018).”

    From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Aruguete & Calvo, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Althaus, S. L., Cizmar, A. M., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Media supply, audience demand, and the geography of news consumption in the United States. Political Communication, 26 (3), 249-277.
  2. Artwick, C. (2012). Body found on Twitter: The role of alternative sources in social media agenda setting. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference.
  3. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
  4. Bastos, M. T., Mercea, D., & Charpentier, A. (2015). Tents, tweets, and events: The interplay between ongoing protests and social media. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 320-350.
  5. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
  6. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731.
  7. Boczkowski, P., & Mitchelstein, E. (2013). The news gap: When the information preferences of the media and the public diverge. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  8. Boczkowski, P., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2017). Incidental News: How Young People Consume News on Social Media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  9. Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 365-379.
  10. Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1-9.
  11. Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Big data, big questions| working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745-1764.
  12. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House's frame After 9/ 11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432. doi:10.1080/10584600390244176 · DOI
  14. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pluto Press.
  16. Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In D. L. Shaw & D. H. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3-14). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
  17. Hilbert, M., Vásquez, J., Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Arriagada, E. (2017). One step, two step, network step? Complementary perspectives on communication flows in Twittered citizen protests. Social Science Computer Review, 35(4), 444-461.
  18. Himelboim, I., Smith, M., & Shneiderman, B. (2013). Tweeting apart: Applying network analysis to detect selective exposure clusters in Twitter. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3-4), 195-223.
  19. Lecaros, M. J., & Greene, F. (2014). Editores chilenos y rutinas periodísticas: revisión y propuesta para un estudio sobre el cambio en la sala de redacción/Chilean editors and journalistic routines: review and proposal towards a study on change in newsrooms. Cuadernos. info 20(34), 53-60.
  20. Lee, J., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. (2015). Message diffusion through social network service: The case of rumor and non-rumor related tweets during Boston bombing 2013. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(5), 997-1005.
  21. Neumayer, C., Rossi, L., & Karlsson, B. (2016). Contested Hashtags: Blockupy Frankfurt in Social Media. International Journal of Communication, 10, 22.
  22. Romero, D. M., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web.
  23. Russell Neuman, W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193-214.
  24. Theocharis, Y. (2013). The wealth of (occupation) networks? Communication patterns and information distribution in a Twitter protest network. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 35-56.
  25. Treré, E. (2015). Reclaiming, proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico: an examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through social media and instant messaging platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 901-915.
  26. Tucker, J. A., Nagler, J., MacDuffee, M., Metzger, P. B., Penfold-Brown, D., & Bonneau, R. (2016). Big data, social media, and protest: foundations for a research agenda. In M. Alvarez (Ed.), Data analytics in social science, government, and industry (pp. 199-224). Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aruguete, N., & Calvo, E.
Affiliations
  • UNQ-Ciencias Sociales, Bernal, Buenos Aires, B1876BXD, Argentina
  • Government and Politics, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Corresponding author
Calvo, Ernesto
ORCID
Calvo, Ernesto
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-04-16
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
480-502
ISSN
  • 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2466
DOI
10.1093/joc/jqy007
OpenAlex
W2799713363
Cited by
111
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
30.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
Keywords
selective exposure, framing, social media, political protest, retweets, cognitive dissonance, echo chambers, political polarization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review